On Thursday, as police in Portland, Ore., were trying to clear Obamavillians who were obstructing car and rail traffic and trespassing at a bank branch, "projectiles were thrown at police and an unidentified man struck a police horse," reports a press release from the Portland Police Bureau, which includes a link to a YouTube video. (Hat tip: blogger Jim Hoft.)

Meanwhile in Davis, Calif., University of California police used pepper spray on Obamavillians who refused their orders to disperse. CBS News describes the scene as follows: "In the video, an officer dispassionately pepper-sprays a line of several sitting protesters who flinch and cover their faces but remain passive with their arms interlocked as onlookers shriek and scream out for the officer to stop."

The pepper spray looks excessive. It might even have been excessive. But the characterization of the so-called protesters as "passive" is ludicrous. They defied, rather than complied with, the order to disperse. The interlocking of arms so as to obstruct the cops from doing their job may be termed defensive rather than aggressive, but it was far from passive. CBS quotes one expert who thinks the police did nothing wrong:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

Apparently the effects of lachrymatory agents can be experienced vicariously. The Davis incident caused James Fallows of The Atlantic to suffer a severe emotional outburst, during which he wrote a blog post titled "Pepper-Spray Brutality at UC Davis." Again, one may argue that the spraying constituted an excessive use of force, but to call it "brutality"--a word that connotes beating--is overwrought. Fallows writes:

I can't see any legitimate basis for police action like what is shown here. Watch that first minute and think how we'd react if we saw it coming from some riot-control unit in China, or in Syria. The calm of the officer who walks up and in a leisurely way pepper-sprays unarmed and passive people right in the face? We'd think: this is what happens when authority is unaccountable and has lost any sense of human connection to a subject population. That's what I think here.

But he is wrong. The Davis police are being held accountable; as the New York Times reports, Linda Katehi, the Davis chancellor, today put campus police chief Annette Spicuzza on "administrative leave," a day after doing the same to the two officers involved with the incident. "I spoke with students this weekend, and I feel their outrage," Katehi said in a statement. Given the politics of university administrators--that is, their propensity to be mau-maued by the left--there is more reason to worry about the cops getting railroaded than about their getting away with any wrongdoing.

Fallows sees the Davis incident as a political boon for Obamaville:

This Occupy moment is not going to end any time soon. That is not just because of the underlying 99%-1% tensions but also because of police response of this sort--and because there have been so many similar videos coming from cities across the country.

What Fallows is predicting--perhaps hoping for--is what PJMedia.com blogger "Zombie" calls a "Kent State moment." Kent State is the Ohio university where, in 1970, National Guardsmen fired their rifles at a mob of rioting student-protesters, killing four. "Why would these left-leaning pundits and activists hope for fatalities amongst the protesters?" Zombie asks rhetorically:

But that's not what they're hoping for. . . . When a leftist hears the words "Kent State," the immediate association is that fateful day when the media published an iconic photograph of an anti-war martyr that was the final tipping point that convinced the majority of Americans to oppose the war.

But wait. Let's say, heaven forbid, that the Obamavillians get their "Kent State moment"--a violent climax serving as the final tipping point that convinces the majority of Americans to oppose . . . well, you see the problem. To oppose what exactly? Private property? Public order? Personal hygiene?

Podcast

Further, if Fallows and other bien-pensant pundits think the Obamavillians will advance politically by seeking confrontation with the police, they may want to ask John Kasich how that worked out for him. Kasich, the governor of Ohio, saw his signature collective bargaining reforms defeated overwhelmingly in a ballot referendum earlier this month, in large part because opponents succeeded in portraying the measure as antipolice.

Or, for that matter, Fallows could talk to President Obama about the political mess he generated when he commented that the Cambridge, Mass., police had "acted stupidly" in arresting an ornery Prof. Henry Lous Gates for disorderly conduct.

In his emotionally overexcited state, Fallows has managed to produce one of the most foolish bits of political analysis we have ever read. Somehow it escapes his notice that Americans, by and large, are grateful to and respectful of the police. That doesn't mean we always agree with them--this columnist, for example, supported Kasich's reforms and thought Obama had a point vis-à-vis Cambridge. (To judge by the email we received, the latter was the most unpopular position we have ever taken.)

If the American public has any sympathy at all for the Obamavillians, there is no surer way of squandering it than to follow Fallows's advice and pursue a strategy of confronting the police.

Leading With Statistics Scott Brown is probably the most vulnerable Republican senator up for re-election next year. His likely opponent, Elizabeth Warren, is a hard-left Harvard professor who has described herself as having "created much of the intellectual foundation" for the anarchist-socialist Obamaville movement. Massachusetts, of course, is one of the few places where that may be a plus for a political candidate.

The New York Times's Nicholas Confessore reports that Warren plans to make an issue of the contributions Brown has received from people who work in the financial industry. How much would that be?

Here's one way of looking at it: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, so far in the 2012 cycle he has received just over $1.2 million from people working in securities and investment, plus $62,000 from industry political action committees. That's less than half of New York Democrat Chuck Schumer's haul: nearly $2.6 million from individuals and $147,000 from PACs. Kirsten Gillibrand, also a New York Democrat, has raised over $2.2 million from individuals and $190,000 from PACs.

But here's another way of looking at it--Confessore's:

Mr. Brown, a freshman who harnessed populist Tea Party anger to win the seat once held by Edward M. Kennedy, has taken more money from the financial industry than almost any other senator: all told, more than $1 million during the last two years, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Presumably this is also true--the number of senators who have outraised Brown in this sector is small--but you get a fuller picture when you know that at least two Democrats have done so by quite a large margin.

Here's another example of the tendentious presentation of statistics, from Politico:

Overall this cycle, about 13 percent of labor groups' political action committee contributions--just over $2 million--have gone toward GOP candidates, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That's still dwarfed by the nearly $14 million in union cash that's gone to Democrats this cycle, but the GOP appears to be gaining ground with union donors after receiving only 6 percent of total contributions in 2010 and 8 percent in the 2008 cycle.

That's the fourth paragraph. The headline: "Big Labor Shells Out for GOP Friends." Again, it is consistent with the facts, but in a rather skewed way.

Global Warmists Live Large "He is the climate change minister who pledged to 'lead by example' in the fight against global warming," reports London's Daily Mail:

But Charles Hendry is facing accusations of hypocrisy after buying himself a 20-bedroom castle [sic; apparently it is 14 bedrooms and 20 rooms]--with a potentially massive carbon footprint--as a second home.

Blair Castle in Ayrshire, which went on the market for £2.5million [about $3.9 million], has three storeys, 16 bathrooms and a heated outdoor swimming pool set in 260 acres of beautiful countryside.

It is likely to rack up colossal energy bills during the cold Scottish winter if Mr Hendry plans to heat all 14 bedrooms, two kitchens and four reception rooms in the main castle.

Just like Al Gore. Of course, it's unfair to judge global warmism by the behavior of politicians. But what about scientists? Blogger Anthony Watts reports that NASA's James Hansen, father of global warmist alarmism, has been cashing in:

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to--and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for--his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties--including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well--to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. . . . Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.

Nice work if you can get it. ABC News, meanwhile, offers a new "scientific" "breakthrough":

The emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gas that are now rapidly warming the earth are by definition invisible.

But what if we could see them? Might the United States have begun to regulate them long ago--as with other emissions we do see?

The Graphics Department of ABC News, working with technicians from the FLIR camera company, whose special "GasfinderIR-GF" cameras can "see" greenhouse gases, has created artist's impressions of what it might look like if we could see our greenhouse gas emissions.

Who needs science when you can just imagine stuff? And here's a bit from CarsDirect.com on the pros and cons of diesel vehicles:

Environmental concerns. This is the primary reason why many people choose to use a diesel car, and in this debate it certainly has benefits in both using less fuel per mile, and also making less CO2, or carbon dioxide. But the diesel fuel is not completely pollution free, and in fact has been shown to produce carcinogens, soot and NOx, which can be just as harmful to the environment.

Carcinogens "can be just as harmful to the environment" as carbon dioxide? That's like saying cigarette smoking can be just as harmful as breathing.

Today's Vandals Have No StandardsHeather Mac Donald will love this one: The New York Times reports on a disturbing new trend of vandalism against trees. In San Francisco, "every tree" on one block "has been spray-painted in shades of purple, red, white and black." The reason? "Graffiti, taggers believe, is not easily covered or removed from trees without harming them."

But here's the part that tells you everything about the Times's worldview:

The vandalism has angered residents, and possibly threatened the health of some trees, which are remarkably rare in San Francisco because very few tree species are indigenous. The tagging also appears to violate one of the tenets of the graffiti subculture: it is supposed to be a reaction to urban life, not an attack on nature.

We would describe the people who create graffiti as vandals damaging the property of others. The Times sees them as a "subculture" that has "tenets," one of which is that you do not vandalize trees. Even more hilarious, it informs us of these alleged tenets in an article that proves they do not exist.

Reliable Sources "Seattle Mariners outfielder Greg Halman was stabbed to death early Monday and his brother was arrested as a suspect," the Associated Press reports. It happened in the Netherlands:

Rotterdam Police spokeswoman Patricia Wessels said police were called to a home in the port city in the early hours of the morning and found the 24-year-old Dutch player bleeding from a stab wound.

The officers and ambulance paramedics were unable to resuscitate Halman.

Wessels said the officers arrested Halman's 22-year-old brother. She declined to give his name, in line with Dutch privacy rules.

She declined to give his name, but she gave his age and his relationship with the famous victim. It seems "Dutch privacy rules" have something in common with Dutch courage and Dutch treats.

Out on a Limb "Libya, Egypt and Syria All Face an Uncertain Future"--headline, Guardian (London), Nov. 20

The Toothpaste Is Already Out of That Tube "His lawyer said in a television interview that [alleged pederast Jerry] Sandusky was fearful that he would not be able to lead a normal life."--New York Times, Nov. 19

Those Are My Principles, and if You Don't Like Them . . . Well, I Have the Hat "Democratic Sen. John Kerry launched a broadside against fellow Massachusetts politician Mitt Romney on Sunday, calling him a flip-flopper," Politico reports. To be sure, Romney is vulnerable to the charge of flip-floppery, but coming from the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam? Even Kerry seems to have been dimly aware that was rich:

Kerry, who was famously accused of flip-flopping during his 2004 presidential campaign by President George W. Bush, contrasted his flip-flop on the Iraq War with Republican Romney's evolution on the issues.

"I did it as a matter of principle," Kerry said. "I'll defend that until the day I die. He's going to have to defend his positions throughout this race if he's the nominee."

So there's the difference between the two Bay Staters: Romney flip-flops out of political expedience or necessity. Kerry flip-flops as a matter of principle.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.